What Do You Think of Presuppositionalism?

[MindForgedManacle]

So, I had a whole, large post laid out intending to refute presuppositional apologetics on its most critical levels (foundational attack, epistemological and methodological problems, confusions on logic, etc.) - and I still have it saved as a draft - but I thought of a more interesting question, which is particularly aimed at the theists here:

What do you think of Presuppositional Apologetics?

If you've never seen it before, here's a video wherein a guy I'm subbed to on YouTube engages some presuppers:

---

---

In particular, does it turn you off? The common thread among presuppers is to cut you at every conceivable instance, be epistemologically hypocritical (you can't discuss the Bible - which we regard as part of our epistemology - but we can, you can't justify why contradictions aren't allowed in your worldview, etc), and do an insane amount of projection. I mean seriously, even the video I linked above was a tame example of your typical presuppositionalist (just search for Sye Ten Bruggencate).

But that's my take, what're yours?

[Angrboda]

Meh. It's irritating, but traditional responses to apologetics don't appear especially effective against it, either. Not sure what to make of that fact.

I'm of the opinion that a weak reductio ad absurdum can be constructed on the foundation of presuppositionalism.

(Assuming god -> logic + reason -> most probable explanation = no God -> assumed (God) + inference from assumption (is no God) == contradiction; therefore, assumption ( is God ) == not true.)

[bennyboy]

I'm all for religious ideas as expressions of an abstract archetypal Man, or as a way of symbolizing the unknown in an interesting way, or as a way of bringing peace to old ladies who want to forget about looming death while they eat their coffee cake. But horseshitism as a philosophy is probably not the best choice available.

[MindForgedManacle]

Meh. It's irritating, but traditional responses to apologetics don't appear especially effective against it, either. Not sure what to make of that fact.

I'm of the opinion that a weak reductio ad absurdum can be constructed on the foundation of presuppositionalism.

(Assuming god -> logic + reason -> most probable explanation = no God -> assumed (God) + inference from assumption (is no God) == contradiction; therefore, assumption ( is God ) == not true.)

I've seen attempts at something like that, and IIRC the response was something like "Since you presuppose the truth of my worldview in even using reasoning, clearly your applications of it is what is wrong."
I think the best refutation I've heard was by this YT user called KnownNoMore. Here's one such video:

"Presuppositional Apologetics Refuted Part 3":

---

---

Also, why do you always end your post with empty bold tags? xD

[Angrboda]

Also, why do you always end your post with empty bold tags? xD

Probably niggling perfectionism. I was heavily involved in document production both professionally and as a volunteer who did literature maintenance and desktop publishing for a loose affiliation of mental health NPO's in the 80s and 90s. I'm just built this way.

[MindForgedManacle]

Rasetsu, what would you think of this objection I thought of?:

Humans define what it means to have valid reasoning, so it doesn't make sense to ask 'Do you reason that your reasoning is valid?', because then we're just applying something we ourselves define. Wouldn't it be like asking Plato "How do you KNOW that knowledge is a justified true belief?"

[Jackalope]

Wouldn't it be like asking Plato "How do you KNOW that knowledge is a justified true belief?"

Whereupon Plato would say "It's tautological, bro!".

As to your OP -

But seriously, all branches of epistemology have underlying assumptions / axioms - assumptions that one who favors another branch to tackle an epistemological is not likely to share. To an empiricist (at least to me), presupposition sounds like bullshit, and the reverse is likely true as well. I cannot reasonably assert that they are wrong - though I remain unconvinced that presuppositionalism is anything but circular wishful thinking. I *can* point to empiricism's track record and explain how it has been *useful* - but that comes down to a question of what one values.

I'm tentatively convinced that it's all a matter of what approach one prefers more than anything, and that claims of "truth", particularly capital-T Truth are not entirely justified.

[Angrboda]

Rasetsu, what would you think of this objection I thought of?:

Humans define what it means to have valid reasoning, so it doesn't make sense to ask 'Do you reason that your reasoning is valid?', because then we're just applying something we ourselves define. Wouldn't it be like asking Plato "How do you KNOW that knowledge is a justified true belief?"

I'm drunk and psychotic tonight, but off the top, I'd say the math and logics are self-evidently self-verifying. The epistemology isn't foolproof, but our best wisdom points to it being reliably true. (To fulfill that promise requires a comprehensive philosophy which I haven't seen. Systematizing appears to have gone the way of the Dodo bird.) (This in a way, asks whether Platonism or nominalism rules. IMHO, neither, because neither asserts a coherent view of the nature of "meaning.")

[Whateverist]

Wouldn't it be like asking Plato "How do you KNOW that knowledge is a justified true belief?"

Whereupon Plato would say "It's tautological, bro!".

As to your OP -

But seriously, all branches of epistemology have underlying assumptions / axioms - assumptions that one who favors another branch to tackle an epistemological is not likely to share. To an empiricist (at least to me), presupposition sounds like bullshit, and the reverse is likely true as well. I cannot reasonably assert that they are wrong - though I remain unconvinced that presuppositionalism is anything but circular wishful thinking. I *can* point to empiricism's track record and explain how it has been *useful* - but that comes down to a question of what one values.

I'm tentatively convinced that it's all a matter of what approach one prefers more than anything, and that claims of "truth", particularly capital-T Truth are not entirely justified.

On a more important note. Is your new avatar picture of anyone we should know? Did you get a new familiar? (Good looking pup!)

I don't think presuppositionalism can really do any positive, constructive work for you. It is more a humbling recognition that we aren't any of us in any position claim capital T truth, once and for all. If someone making extraordinary claims wishes to squirt out an inkjet of presuppositionalism as they slither into the depths - fine with me. But to think it makes you king of the hill is a step too far.

[Lemonvariable72]

To be honest I think that when people apply it to Christianity it is like watching your idiot friend to soup up a crappy Chevy cavalier. But I feel that way about most apollogetics